Matthew is a Managing Associate in the Business Crime Group in the Litigation department.
He has experience of white collar defence and serious/complex crime including all areas of associated litigation, including: restraint; confiscation; civil recovery; freezing orders; judicial review; and challenges to search warrants.
Matthew is also a member of the Fraud Lawyers Association, Junior London Solicitors Litigation Association and has been recognised by the Legal 500 in 2015 as ‘A star of the future with an excellent background in both civil and criminal law.’ He also regularly contributes to updates for Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS).
- Fraud/Complex Crime
- R v J - Successfully defended a senior executive of JJB PLC against a prosecution brought by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) concerning the aiding and abetting of his principle to mislead the market in respect of a £100m capital raising venture.
- R v K - Defending a company director accused of defrauding HM Revenue & Customs of £500,000 of VAT arising from a complex international corporate structure.
- R v MW – Assisting as part of the defence team representing in criminal and regulatory proceedings before the English Cricket Board the first English professional cricketer to be charged with accepting an inducement to underperform in order to facilitate ‘spot-fixing’.
- MHRA v IG – Successfully defending a client charged in a multi-handed conspiracy to supply imitation pharmaceutical drugs on the UK market resulting in a Level 1 product recall (Operation Singapore). Considered by the prosecution to be the most serious breach of EU medicines control at the time.
- Civil Litigation and Advice
- Acting for clients and companies with regards to freezing order proceedings as stand-alone actions or those linked to criminal investigations as well as advising clients and interested third parties in proceedings brought under Part V of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- In August 2012 Matthew acted on behalf of a Dutch company in defence of an action brought by a Dutch bank for injunctive relief in relation to the Olympic medal winning horse (an asset of the respondent company). The proceedings were successfully concluded resulting in the return of the asset to the Dutch jurisdiction.
- Judicial Review:
- Challenges to search warrants and production orders.
- HMRC v G & Others – Representing company directors and individuals in relation to actions for judicial review, resisting applications pursuant to s.59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 claims and subsequent Supreme Court petitions, against the backdrop of proceedings where HM search warrants, restraint and receivership orders obtained by HMRC in a multi-million pound money laundering investigation had been quashed by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
- Appellate proceedings
- R (O) v Crown Court at Harrow  1 A.C. 249, House of Lords – Interrelation of Article 5(3) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
- R v O  EWCA Crim 905 – appeal following a 6 month trial. Conviction quashed on the basis that that bad character evidence adduced at trial rendered the trial unnecessarily complex for the jury.
- Representing individuals facing extradition proceedings arising out of requests from the United Kingdom as well as from other requesting States from within and outside of the European Union.
Managing Associate, Mishcon de Reya LLP
Associate, Mishcon de Reya LLP
Solicitor, Blackfords LLP
BPP Law School, Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test
College of Law, Bar Vocational Course
University of Hertfordshire, LLB (Hons)
Articles and Publications
Draft 4th Amendment to the Money Laundering Directive - Beneficial ownership in the spotlight
Joint Enterprise following R v Joggee; Ruddock v The Queen  UKSC 8
Why companies should prepare to review their anti-bribery and corruption policies